The author first reviews traditional approaches to classroom spelling instruction, then presents research on remedial spelling instruction for learning disabled children. Section I considers factors which make spelling harder than reading, the history of traditional spelling instruction from Colonial times to the 1950s, the generalization controversy which concerns the utility of organizing instruction to take advantage of the English spelling system, the contribution of modern linguistics to the structure of English orthography, and research on other issues in spelling instruction (including the incidential-systematic controversy, context vs. list presentation of words, test-study-test vs. study-test procedures, distributed vs. mass learning, number of words in a lesson, methods of word study, and focus on the difficult parts of words). Part II begins with a look at what children are learning when they learn to spell. Types of spelling disability are pointed out and research is reviewed on the following approaches: Orton-Gillingham method which involves simultaneous oral spelling, the G. Fernald method known as the V-A-K-T (visual-auditory-kinesthetic-tactile) system, A. Bannatyne's system which always begins with nonvisual training, programs following the Orton tradition, and programs based on task analysis and criterion referenced tests. Among conclusions are that children are learning a great deal about the structure of language when they learn to spell, that spelling disabilities vary largely on the dimension of severity with the most severe cases unable to manage even simple phonetic spelling, and that major spelling methods have points of commonality (including teaching of reading and spelling as coordinated subjects, careful sequencing of words, an essentially multisensory approach, and an emphasis on mastery of each step before progressing to the next). (SB)